Just For Fun

Eric Cantor, much to our surprise, almost just did something we not only would have agreed with, but in fact given our wholehearted support to. Almost.

In the midst of caving in to President Obama on the whole debt ceiling fight, Cantor tossed out a proposal (likely, to distract attention from his giant cave on the debt ceiling) which, at first glance, sounds great.

In a statement released to the media after the annual House Republican retreat, Cantor says the following:

We must pay our bills and responsibly budget for our future. Next week, we will authorize a three month temporary debt limit increase to give the Senate and House time to pass a budget. Furthermore, if the Senate or House fails to pass a budget in that time, Members of Congress will not be paid by the American people for failing to do their job. No budget, no pay.

Cantor is then backed up by John Boehner, who also bluntly states: "The principle is simple: no budget, no pay."

I was all ready to jump on board, at this point. After all, I've written (on multiple occasions, since 2007) previous articles with the same basic title: "No Budget? No Pay!"

Unfortunately, later on in the news article appeared an unattributed statement (from a "leadership aide") that "if the House were to pass a budget and the Senate did not, House members would still get paid but senators would have their pay withheld."

Up until this point, I thought they were serious. This statement, however, means they are not. They are just playing politics, and bad politics at that. Because a House budget that doesn't make it through the Senate does not count, guys. Sorry. A House budget that cannot pass the Senate is, by definition, a political stunt, not "a budget."

But this does open up a wonderful opportunity for Democrats. Instead of this fake "no pay" idea, Democrats should get behind a real bill that would indeed do what Cantor and Boehner are trying to pretend their new idea does. In the last session of Congress, the "No Budget, No Pay Act" was introduced in both the Senate and the House. It got 14 cosponsors in the Senate, and a whopping 80 in the House (search the bill-tracking site at the Library of Congress for "H.R.3603" or "S.1981" from the 112th Congress to see the cosponsor lists).

The NBNPA (as I'm going to call it from now on) fully complies with the Constitution (Cantor's idea does not). It would not go into effect until after the next election, as the XXVIIth Amendment dictates. And it has real teeth -- both houses of Congress would have to pass a budget in order for anyone to get paid. Cantor's idea is no more than a stunt -- so the House Republicans can pass some laughable nonsense they call a "budget," knowing full well the Senate will never agree to it, and then they'll continue getting paid while denying the Senate paychecks. That right there is never going to pass the Senate, much less be signed into law. Any "no budget, no paycheck" law has to address the real problem: the inability of both parties in both houses of Congress to get their act together, negotiate, and hammer out a compromise.

If Democrats were smart, they'd co-opt the slogan at the heart of Cantor's flim-flammery, and make a huge push for enacting a real "no pay" law, instead of this cheap gimmick. It's one of those things which politicians hate, but will be wildly, insanely popular with the American people. If Democrats fail to take up this challenge, they risk Cantor and Boehner scoring political points on the issue with nothing but smoke and mirrors to back them up. Democrats: call their bluff! Revive the NBNPA and push it hard!

This past week saw official reactions to the slaughter of innocent children in Newtown, Connecticut. Two Democrats stood out this week, one on the state level and one on the national.

While President Obama got the spotlight for announcing his list of proposals about what to do about curbing gun violence, he only gets an Honorable Mention for doing so. Instead, the coveted Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to Vice President Joe Biden, who was in charge of the task force which put together the recommendations. This task force reacted with blinding speed, by Washington's standards. In a single month, they held all their meetings and came up with their list of ideas to present to Obama. Normally, in Washington, any blue-ribbon commission would still be figuring out who will sit where at the table, and be ordering their office supplies. Normal commissions of this type usually take -- at minimum -- six-to-nine months to do anything productive. Taking whole years to do something is not even out of the question.

Biden, instead, ran a tight ship. He got people together, heard ideas, and then put together an incredibly comprehensive list of possible governmental actions. So comprehensive, in fact, that even some critics of gun control had guardedly good things to say about some of the ideas proposed. Nobody knows how effectively the ideas will be implemented (even the ones that don't have to make it through Congress), and nobody knows how effective any one particular idea will turn out to have been, but the list Biden came up with seems to have been based on "let's try a little bit of everything," which probably sounds pretty good to the American public right now.

On the state level, New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo also must be awarded his own MIDOTW, for equally-blinding legislative speed. New York passed the most strict gun control laws of pretty much any state, and they did so this week as well. That's not just a commission's report with suggestions, that is actually getting a bill written, passing it through the state legislature, and getting it signed into law -- in the space of one month. For such quick action -- and for such bold action in the law's provisions -- Cuomo also qualifies as Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Remember his name, folks, you may be hearing it in a few years on the presidential campaign trail.

Congratulations are in order for both Governor Cuomo and for Vice President Biden, not only for their actions in dealing with the problem of gun violence, but also for the incredible speed with which they did so.

This week, the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award is given not "in sorrow," but rather "with amusement."

President Barack Obama's White House has been revolutionary for many reasons, one of which is improving online access for the American people. Specifically, the concept that people can propose questions to the White House, and if they get enough support from like-minded folks, the White House is bound to provide an answer. Up until now, this limit has been getting 25,000 digital signatures within a period of 30 days.

This week, however, the White House announced it was considerably upping this bar -- by a factor of four. Henceforth, 100,000 signatures will be necessary to generate an official response.

Boo! What are you trying to do, take away our fun?!?

The story is probably best told as comedy. The White House is (quite likely) tired of wackadoodle questions that a surprising number of Americans want to see officially answered. The most recent example was not the question of secession (which, after all, is a very serious subject), but rather the proposal that America immediately begin constructing a Death Star in space which is capable of blowing up planets, as shown in Star Wars. This question easily got the 25,000 signatures it needed.

The punchline was how the White House began its response: "This isn't the petition response you're looking for." Heh. Jedi mind tricks from the White House -- how cool is that?

But what they obviously meant was: "This is not the sort of petition we are looking for." The online community has always appreciated a good joke -- the geekier the better, in fact -- and there are plenty of hilarious things you can dream up which would be fun to see a White House response to. Because the Obama White House came up with the idea in the first place, it's not surprising that they have had to adjust it slightly over time.

Still, the fact that we won't have as many of these hilarious questions asked of the White House in the future is disappointing, to say the least. There is precious little humor emanating from Washington as it is for a poor pundit to write about, and we'll miss the "Death Star" type questions that never achieve the 100,000-signature threshold in the future.

So for whatever White House office made the decision to up the limit, we award this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. Way to spoil our fun, guys.

We've got a special offering this week. We're reaching all the way back to "Friday Talking Points [62]" (originally published January 23, 2009) for our talking points this week, to check in four years later with the ideals President Obama expressed in his first Inaugural Address. Back then, we identified these seven excerpts as those that would stand the test of time and be remembered in the future. Since we're now in that future (wondering, as we always do, futuristically... where the heck are the flying cars we were promised?), we can now revisit what Obama said upon his first swearing-in as our Chief Magistrate (as they called it in the past), and see what holds up and what doesn't.

The first thing you'll notice, reading these, is the overwhelming sense of optimism. Looking back, it's hard to escape the term "naïveté," in fact. Obama really, truly believed he could get the Republicans to work with him. He honestly thought he could change the polarized culture of Washington, almost single-handedly. He was, obviously, completely wrong on that one. In fact, it took him an almost painful amount of time to realize it (until, say, about mid-2011). Over and over again, he tried to compromise with Republicans in an effort to gain some support, and over and over again his proposals were rejected out of hand.

The second thing worth noting here is what a different place America is in economically right now than we were when he gave this speech. We were in the midst of an utter fiscal and economic collapse. Things were getting worse by the day. We were losing an astounding 750,000 jobs per month. Things are not perfect, four years later, but the trends are all good and heading in the right direction now, instead of into the abyss. Just keep in mind the dire straits we faced back then when reading Obama's words.

The last thing is the change in Americans' attitude towards foreign policy. War was a big issue during the 2008 campaign. The "War On Terror" was still at the forefront of the discussion. In 2012, foreign policy was barely even mentioned on the campaign trail. That's a big shift. We're out of Iraq, and we're accelerating our planned withdrawal from Afghanistan -- our nation's longest war, ever.

In any case, in preparation for Obama's second swearing-in ceremony next Monday, here are the excerpts I thought would endure from his first.

The time has come to set aside childish things

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

We must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed.

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

Not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched.

But this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

Our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.

They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use. Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy, guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We'll begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan.

We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist

We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense.

And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, "Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.

And because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.

To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

A man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath

Our challenges may be new, the instruments with which we meet them may be new, but those values upon which our success depends, honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old.

These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history.

What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence: the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed, why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall. And why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day in remembrance of who we are and how far we have traveled.

Up until this point, I thought they were serious. This statement, however, means they are not. They are just playing politics, and bad politics at that. Because a House budget that doesn't make it through the Senate does not count, guys. Sorry. A House budget that cannot pass the Senate is, by definition, a political stunt, not "a budget."

I disagree..

The HOUSE did it's job so they should be paid..

They shouldn't be penalized if the Senate still refuses to do IT'S job..

The fact that Democrats and the POTUS hasn't passed a budget in year **IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW** is somewhat noteworthy, wouldn't ya'all agree??

Now, I am not the political giants ya'all are... I am a simple knuckle dragging ground pounder..

But I DO know common sense..

The House does it's job how the House does it's job..

I seem to recall that, when the Democrats held the House, they were applauded for ignoring political machinations and protocol and doing the right thing, what the Senate does be damned...

So, why is it any difference when the Republicans hold the House???

I'll get to your TPs in the morning.. Just wanted to go on the record on this point..

If the House does it's job, they deserve to get paid.

They shouldn't have to suffer because the Senate is more worried about a Party's political agenda at the expense of the country...

That right there is never going to pass the Senate, much less be signed into law. Any "no budget, no paycheck" law has to address the real problem: the inability of BOTH parties in both houses of Congress to get their act together, negotiate, and hammer out a compromise.

Oh, no, you're wrong on this one. Say Cantor's law passed. The House passes a GOP "budget" and the Senate passes a Dem "budget," and both go home. So they both should be paid? How does that change anything from what we have now?

To put it another way: in what universe does the House think it has the power to cut Senate paychecks on its own say? That's just laughable...

If the law doesn't say "a budget which passes both Houses and is put on the desk of the president" then it is nothing more than partisan posturing. Sorry. That reality just can't be spun.

California -- by citizen's initiative -- passed a REAL law. No budget -- a REAL budget, mind you -- then, no pay. We used to wait like SIX TO NINE MONTHS from the due date for a budget. Do a web search on "CA IOU" to see what happened. It was ugly.

We passed a law. The first year, they tested it. Their pay got cut off. 12 days later, we had a budget. Since then, I don't think they've been late FOR A SINGLE DAY, even once.

These laws work. But they have to have teeth.

Oh, and by the way, the Senate passed a "Continuing Resolution" each year, and Obama signed it, a loophole in the law, but not as bad as you suggest.

I really did miss Nagin, I'll get him next week, promise... you know I nail these guys when I notice them, right?

Oh, no, you're wrong on this one. Say Cantor's law passed. The House passes a GOP "budget" and the Senate passes a Dem "budget," and both go home. So they both should be paid? How does that change anything from what we have now?

I see your point and it is a valid point.

However, I still believe that if a person does THEIR job, they should get paid. They should not be penalized because their co-workers didn't do THEIR jobs...

To put it another way: in what universe does the House think it has the power to cut Senate paychecks on its own say? That's just laughable...

How is the House cutting the Senate's paycheck?? The House DID it's job??

Oh, no, you're wrong on this one. Say Cantor's law passed. The House passes a GOP "budget" and the Senate passes a Dem "budget," and both go home. So they both should be paid? How does that change anything from what we have now?

OK, I had my required 3 Diet Cokes and now this makes more sense.. :D

However, it would be different than we have it now because at least the branches of Congress would have actually ATTEMPTED to do their jobs.. They would be ON RECORD as to exactly where all our tax dollars are going...

I mean, seriously. The Democrats in the Senate havn't even ATTEMPTED to do a budget in YEARS!!

WHY!!????

I'll tell you why.

Because they don't want the American people to know how they are spending OUR money!!

No other reason makes sense and fits the facts...

No matter how you spin this, the Democrat Senate is violating the law AND screwing over the American people at the same time..

And yes, the same thing would be said about Republicans if THEY were doing the same thing..

As part of a proposal to raise the debt limit for three months, the House GOP would suspend pay for members of Congress unless both the House and the Senate pass a budget blueprint for the next fiscal year.

But, apparently, there is a Constitutional issue with such a move..

But it's interesting that it's the REPUBLICANS that are pushing for this plan, iddn't it?? :D

We had completely missed the opening line of the Death Star response b/c we so enjoyed the 3 responses. Thanks for pointing that gag out, it was the best of the bunch.

Going to your intro, Dems in the House need to vote present on the debt ceiling proposal. If the House GOP is going to pull a stunt (and repeat the debt-ceiling fiasco again in 3 mos), then a majority of them should actually have to vote to raise the debt ceiling, regardless of any attached additionals.

To touch on whether or not a NBNPA is a good idea, can you imagine any budget that gets through the Senate (60 votes), the House (GOP), and the WH (Obama compromising) being one that sustains progressive values?

The federal gov't seems to be capable of running w/o a budget. It isn't pretty, but it does follow the inertia laws (ertia?). At the moment, I'd go with this.

It's not nonsense! I read it on Drudge. And everything on Drudge is 100% factually correct from completely impartial sources. If the reign of this socialist Muslim Usurper continues like this I'm moving to Canada...

PS. It looks like the tough-talking-left-of-centre 'Speaker Obama' came out today to gave an inauguration address, putting the always-caving-compromising-right-of-centre 'President Obama' out of sight... At least for 1 day...

Maybe Democrats should pull one over on those sneaky nefarious Republicans and actually PASS this NO BUDGET/NO PAY legislation!!

I think they should pass it - as long it stipulates that a budget must be passed (not 'passed through 1 Chamber) before they are paid.

Like I said above the day that Republicans turn up to support Government forcing people to do things and especially forcing people (i.e. them) to compromise will be a good day for America. I don't think you will see this day any-time soon though...

So, even though Republicans are doing EXACTLY what CW has said should be done, it's STILL just a nefarious trick.

But that's just it, Michale. They're not.

If it were dependent on an approved budget through both chambers, I'm all for it.

It looks like the tough-talking-left-of-centre 'Speaker Obama' came out today to gave an inauguration address, putting the always-caving-compromising-right-of-centre 'President Obama' out of sight... At least for 1 day.

Yep. Hopefully there is more of this now that he's not worried about getting re-elected.

As part of a proposal to raise the debt limit for three months, the House GOP would suspend pay for members of Congress unless both the House and the Senate pass a budget blueprint for the next fiscal year.

All this says is that the House must pass a bill and the Senate must pass a bill.

Lol Michale come on use your head. OF COURSE they must pass the same (what would be a compromise) budget otherwise the WHOLE THING IS POINTLESS. What is the point in forcing the Republican run House to pass a Republican budget then the Democrat run Senate to pass a Democrat budget? Neither of which will pass the other Chamber and both be a complete waste of time.

If you want to force this then at least call your bill the 'Let Congress Continue To Waste Their Time (And Taxpayers Money) On Legislation That Has Zero Chance Of Becoming Law Act' (LCCTWTTATMOLTHZCOFBLA for short) instead of 'No Budget No Pay'.

Or as CW put it "Any "no budget, no paycheck" law has to address the real problem: the inability of both parties in both houses of Congress to get their act together, negotiate, and hammer out a compromise."

What on earth are you talking about Michale? All everyone on here is doing is clarifying exactly what NBNP entails. There is a HUGE, ENORMOUS, GIGANTIC difference between:

- The House and Senate must each pass a budget

and

- The House and Senate much each pass the same budget

If Republicans are supporting the latter, CW and almost everyone who has posted supports this.

Myself I don't see Republicans supporting the latter, I think they support the former and are just using this as a political stunt (shock, horror!) like the fake 'Obama budgets' and all the other political stunts they use surrounding the budget.

If Republicans have changed their tone to the party of Government decreeing that a budget must be passed and that parties must compromise - good for them. I'll believe it when I see it.